Please sign in to post.

Your thoughts on this itinerary?

We will have between 2 and 3 weeks for travel, and so far this is the itinerary we're thinking of following (entirely by train). Would love your thoughts on how long to spend in each location -- and whether our initial thoughts make sense! Would also welcome suggestions of specific must-see/must-does, alternatives if these don't seem like great destinations, etc. Especially interested in particularly scenic train routes! My husband is especially eager to see the two locations in Germany, I'm especially eager to visit Italy, and we are both eager to see the Alps and Salzburg seemed like the logical stop. Could we cut down the number of days at all? Is this about right?

TIA!

Boston - Berlin (3 nights)
Berlin to Munich (3 nights - renting a car one day to see where my husband's family came from)
Munich to Salzburg (2 or 3 nights -- maybe doing a day trip to Vienna if we stay 3 nights; hoping to hear some music)
Salzburg to Venice (2 nights)
Venice to Florence (3 nights)
Florence to Rome (3 nights)
Rome - Boston

Posted by
2571 posts

Salzburg is a beautiful city and you don’t need to leave it to hear some music (assuming you mean classical music!). It is the birthplace of Mozart, and he is celebrated all over town. There are tons of musical opportunities - from a dinner & concert to a concert at the palace. The alps just south of Salzburg (area near Werfen) are spectacular. I would definitely give Salzburg 3 nights. You could day trip to Berchtesgaden or Hallstatt - both are beautiful and each have plenty to fill a day. I’ve spent 12 nights in Salzburg and not seen enough of it and the gorgeous surrounding areas.

Posted by
183 posts

By Day 6 you will be regretting packing in so much to do and wondering how you will survive the next 8.

Posted by
3277 posts

Is there a direct train from Salzburg to Venice? If not, you’ll lose a day getting there. However, you can fly nonstop from Munich to Venice and take a day trip from Munich to Salzburg (2h by direct train). The earlier you buy your plane ticket the cheaper it will be if flying on a low-cost carrier.

Posted by
430 posts

That is a lot of cities for one trip, and no small charming little towns? For example it will take you all day to get to Venice from Salzburg and if your only planning on two nights in Venice (one day) what will you be able to see? I would cut Florence and add that time to Rome. Cut either Munich or Salzburg and add that time to Venice. J

Posted by
5495 posts

IMO it's too much in the allotted time; shortchanging Berlin, Venice, and Rome. If you can extend your trip and add another day to each of those places I think you would have a better experience. Otherwise, seriously consider eliminating one of your stops .

Posted by
8322 posts

Add more days to Rome if you can, you can't see it all in three days. In fact, if you could eliminate Berlin and fly into Munich, do that and add two days to Rome and one day to Florence.

Posted by
15794 posts

Have you been to Europe before? I ask because you don't seem to be taking into account the time to get from place to place and the time to get oriented to each location, like where is your hotel in relation to the sights you want to see, how to find street names, how to use trams, buses, metro and so on.

A good start is to see train schedules and journey times on bahn.com. Berlin to Munich is 4-4.5 hours on the train, you'll use another hour to get from hotel to train and from train to hotel. You lose about half a day just going to anothr city. So 3N gives you 2 full days plus a bit, though you'll have more in Italy since the train rides are shorter and the train stations in Florence and Venice are "close to the action.". Thus, you have 2 days to see Berlin, and you may still be zonked on Day 2 from jetlag. You have only 1 day in Munich. Vienna is not a day trip from Salzburg - it's 2.5 hours on the train each way. And so on. Also consider that trains are not cheap.

Salzburg is not in the Alps. Your best bet could be a day trip to Garmisch from Munich.

Posted by
124 posts

Thanks everyone!

I did look at the travel times... I have often done local day trips that require 2+ hours of driving each way, so it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. In fact -- just getting home from Boston to Cape Cod can take 2 hours in rush hour traffic... so I guess I'm used to the idea of spending some time on the road. And I am thinking of train time as "down" time (I just love train travel!).

A few years ago we did a one-week trip to Ireland in which we spent a night in the Burren, two in Kenmare, two in Dunmore East (family) and two in Dublin... and we didn't feel horribly rushed... and we just spent three nights in Anaheim, three on Oahu, and four on Hawaii and got in an awful lot of sightseeing despite the time changes... So the idea of having three nights in a city after a 3-4 hour train ride while in the same time zone doesn't seem that daunting to me!

On the other hand, the last time I really traveled around Europe I was in my 20's, and a lot has changed since then... So I'll take a look again and see if we can reconsider some of our choices. I was thinking about including Venice but not the other Italian cities right now...

Posted by
7995 posts

Among the changes made in Europe are now some super-fast bullet trains. This past October, we went between Rome and Florence at 180 Miles Per Hour much of the way, so you could get from Florence to Rome for your return flight in almost no time at all. Flights from Rome back to the USA, however, often depart pretty early in the morning, so depending on your schedule, you might need to spend your last night in Italy in Rome, for proximity to the airport and that flight. Or leave Florence extremely early, to make your plane. Maybe.

Posted by
6113 posts

You are short changing most places just to scratch the surface. I had a jam packed 6 full days in Berlin and didn’t get to see all I wanted. You have 2 days there and at least the first will be affected by jet lag.

If your schedule doesn’t permit you to spend at least 3 full days in Venice (4 nights) then I would drop it and go there when you have time to do it justice. Likewise, 2 days in Rome will be rushed.

Posted by
2571 posts

In response to your comment about visiting Venice and dropping the other Italian cities: I think that would be a great idea. Give yourself more time in fewer places. And plan a separate trip to devote more time to Rome and Florence.

If you want to see great mountains between Salzburg and Venice, you could go to the Dolomites. Take the train/bus from Salzburg to Ortesei in 4.5 hours. Then take the train/bus to Venice in 4-5 hours.

Posted by
124 posts

travel4fun -- what a GREAT idea -- never thought of that!! will look into it!

Posted by
183 posts

Its not a matter of "can" you do it. Most here are questioning the "why" do it.

Berlin to Rome is not Ireland. And Anaheim, depending on your "sightseeing" is time in traffic but easy enough. This might be a stretch, but We will assume you didn't take a train to Oahu and then Hawaii. Commuting in your own car to your own house? Not the same as travel on unfamiliar roads.

Seems what most people here suggest is keep it to either a vacation in Germany/Austria or a vacation in Italy. 3 weeks in either area is plenty of relaxing and sightseeing.

Don't forget to account for:

you will have more luggage or need time to do laundry
you are no longer in your 20's and I'll assume your traveling companion isn't either
dining in restaurants takes longer. They don't seem to worry about turning tables
lines for sightseeing points will be longer than you might anticipate as will be crowds
In at least one of the cities you can expect your hotel/rental is not as convenient as they led you to believe
Sundays/Mondays ... many places might be closed.

No matter ... here's hoping for a pleasant journey

Posted by
226 posts

Berlin is the outlier. I suggest that you exclude Berlin and start in Munich. Add nights to Rome and Salzburg area.

Boston - Munich (3 nights -day trip to Garmisch/Oberammergau/Mittenwald OR Neuschwanstein)
Munich to Salzburg (3 or 4 nights - day trip to Hallstatt and Salzkammergut Lake District and/or Berchtesgaden)
Salzburg to Venice (2 or 3 nights)
Venice to Florence (3 nights)
Florence to Rome (4 nights)
Rome - Boston

Posted by
124 posts

BradFrumos, I thought about that... but I THINK my husband is really eager to see Berlin in particular, and I've never been there... so I think I'm more likely to go with the northern plan, with Venice being the only Italian destination -- and plan a separate trip for Florence, Tuscany, Rome -- and maybe even add on a little Greek islands cruise!

Or, if he doesn't TELL me what he really wants, I might decide for him and just stick with Italy... when I ask what he prefers, he says "I want to see everything," which isn't a whole lot of help-- and then he gets overwhelmed with the options lol!

Posted by
15794 posts

I have a friend far away. We love to spend the little time we have together on road trips. I know what she and I both enjoy. I do all the planning which I like because I choose everything. She likes it because she's very busy at work and frankly, I don't think she likes getting into the details. She's never said a word against any of my choices and looks forward to our next trip together.

I have no idea what the dynamics are in your case.

Posted by
124 posts

Chani -- I do all the in-depth vacation planning... but as it happens I did a lot of traveling as a young adult and my husband didn't, so he is now eager to see ALL of Europe -- and is finding it hard to say WHICH part he wants to start with. I gave him that original itinerary to think about and he said "great, let's do that, and don't change it." Problem is it was just a starting place, and now that I know more I can see we really SHOULD change it... So I kinda need at least a "Gotta see the Alps" or "Rome rocks," or "Berlin or bust," or something like that... I THINK he's eager to see Berlin and to get to the town in Germany where his mom's family originated, but -- don't want to guess and get it wrong!

Posted by
183 posts

OP -- good luck with your planning. Your husband just has to understand he will likely never "see it all". If you go to 5 cities he will get short changed of some sights/experiences. If you go to spend 6 days in one city, he might still find things he missed.

Seems to me your task -- plan an itinerary that won't burn him out to decide he doesn't want to return to Europe. But by all means, get him to Berlin. And give him some homework -- he should plan the Berlin excursions.

Posted by
1606 posts

A problem with asking for itinerary advice is that the people responding will give their advice based on what they would do in each city, not what you want to do in each city (unless you include that information). For example, I listed the itinerary for the trip I took in May several months back and it was maligned. But it worked just fine for us. That is because our interests differed from the responders. For example, you won't be able to cover everything Berlin has to offer in 3 days. But maybe 3 days in Berlin will give you enough time to do everything you want. This is the challenge. What do you want to want to do in each city? How long will that take? How much travel time between stops are you willing to put up with? Planning a trip is my favorite part of travel. Happy planning and happy travelling.

Posted by
7995 posts

Lisa, do you foresee an additional trip to Europe, beyond the 2-3 weeks you’re planning now? Maybe there are two trips in your future, “his” (Germany/Austria), and “yours” (Italy). Is there a chance the two of you could go on one this time, and the other next time? How you decide which one to take first could be another issue - if you can go on a second trip.

Is flying home from Rome non-negotiable? You could still potentially fly from wherever to Rome, then fly to Boston the same, or the next day.